Fight History

Given the reason for the development of WC does anyone know of any actual instances where WC was used against the Manchus during the time it was being developed.

Or, was WC never actually put to its original use. I ask only because so many people across the web claim WC is difficult or useless as a fighting art (not my opinion).

I’m thinking that if there were any actual historical incidents where WC fighters demonstrated their skill it would probably be a good indication of the quality etc of WC when it was originally developed.

P.s my WC history is dodgey but i remember either the huns or the manchus were repressing the other at the time.

thankx in advance.
Seeya

Hi Mtod1,

The book Complete Wing Chun points out that Wing Chun was likely developed covertly and even for assassination purposes. If this were true, those who suppressed the Ming supporters might destroy records of “Wing Chun Awesomeness”, while the supporters themselves would embellish on it. Most of history is ambiguous heresay. You would be hard-pressed to find a detailed description of the time Joe Wing Chun beat up Jim Manchu =)

Legends say the Manchu were oppressing the Han (Chinese majority) during the Qing dynasty, but legends are often romanticized. The truth is, after the initial invasion and succession, the Qing proved very good at some things (they helped restore and promote Buddhist temples, worked on education and the licentiates system, etc.) and not good or oppressive at others (as was the Ming or any other dynasty).

WRT WCK in specific, the earliest people we know who practiced WCK were the Red Junk actors of the mid 1800s in Guangdong. We also know they took part in what became known as the Red Turban Rebellion (named for the common folk who came out to support them wearing symbolic red turbans). Under direction of Lee Man-Mao (a white crane boxer), they took to the streets of Foshan to support (or take advantage of) the Taiping Rebellion of Hong Xiuquan.

Now, Qing forces weren’t all (or even majority in that region) Manchu at the time, but an assortment of local people organized by the wealthy (there’s an excellent book on all this called Enemy at the Gate). There were repeated clashes in Foshan, which the Red Junk people (and the WCK people among them) may have taken part in, but eventually the locals turned against them (some of the rebels proved more oppressive to them then the Qing) and they lost Foshan. In retaliation, Liangguang governor-general Yip Man-chan slaughtered the opera performers and burned down their boats and stages. The opera performers that survived joined ‘outside’ companies or fled and his in the local towns like Zhaoqing, Foshan, Guangzhou, and some taught WCK to the people there (Leung Jan, Fok Bo-Chuen, Fung Siu-Ching, Cho Shing, etc.).

There are rumors that people like Fok Bo-Chuen and Fung Siu-Ching, who worked for the Qing government as arresting officers (constables) used their position to engage in assasination of Qing officials (and not all officials of the Qing were Manchu, there were many Han as well), but not proof of this.

Others, like Leung Jan, egaged in Beimo, or challeng matches, and proved their fighting skill that way.

RR

Red Turbans

Rene:

I think you may have your rebellions confused. The Red Turban Revolution occured during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in the mid-1300’s.

The Red Turbans were responsible for overthrowing Mongol rule and ushering in the Ming Dynasty.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www.warriortours.com/intro/history/yuan/page4.htm

http://www.uglychinese.org/ming.htm

rene/watchman (good to see you again, watch),

wasn’t it typical for the majority of chinese dynasties to kind of take over where the previous dynasty left off – meaning, the while it’s a different group doing the governing, was there all that much change from dynasty to dynasty, even in the more urban areas?

from what i’ve read, it seems that many of the dynasties changed little more than who was at top of the political food chain. am i off on this one?

Red Turban seems to have been a term used by several groups, latter ones perhaps as tribute to former. This one (Foshan) was called Red Turban Rebellion, and is rather famous (again, the book Enemy at the Gates is all about it). There was another group known as Red Turban in Foshan, for example, not involved with this rebellion. Check out Tiandihui by Dian Murray for more. (There have also been Yellow Turban, I believe, and White Turban has had other meanings, etc.)

You can also check out the second section of this article for some info on how it all ties together: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=229

RR

The history of Wing Chun is definitely connected to revolution activity during the Qing/Ming transition and very much a part of secret societies. However, I wouldn’t expect any official records found as the Chinese open up the Qing historical records. The Qing government would never have promoted information about anyone that was successful in fighting against it. Reasonably, any resistance would be downplayed if it was even acknowledge at all. Most of the legends of famous Wing Chun fighters, such as Leung Jan, date from after the destruction of the Red Opera. However, these fighters became famous because their families of Wing Chun moved away from political objectives and secret society action. From the oral tradition, Leung Jan was a great fighter. Those challenge were more about testing skill within the martial arts community rather than life-and-death, politically motivated struggles.

As always, Rene has done a good job at collecting and presenting a wealth of information on Wing Chun dating from the Red Boat to today. VTM research has focused on what was before red boat. Here’s some of the information I’ve collected over the last year.

Wing Chun originates from the Southern Shaolin Temple. The Buddhist community was a part of originators of Wing Chun, acting through a secret society known as the Fut Paai Hung Mun (Buddhist Sect Hung Mun). The name of this society refers to Buddhist involvement in the Hung Mun, a very large and loosely organized secret society. The met, practiced and developed themselves and fighting systems in the Weng Chun Tong (Everlasting Spring Hall). This organization was founded by members of the Buddhist order and were given free access to the Southern Shaolin Temple. The goal of the Weng Chun Tong was to continue to develop the methods of Chan practice, health and fighting.

Out of the Fut Paai Hung Mun, another secret society was created in the Southern Shaolin Temple (among possible others), the Hung Fa Wui. The name of this society comes from two influences - Ming supporters outside the Buddhist order and members of the Buddhist order.

The word Hung means red and symbolized the founder of the Ming Dynasty. Zhu Yuanzhang fought and won against the Yuan Dynasty, which had been founded by the Mongols. He was the member of a secret society called the Hung Gun (Red Bandanas). The Han Chinese felt that they had been invaded by the Mongol and Zhu finally defeated the invaders. Using Hong for the name of the secret society called to mind Zhu’s historic battles against the Mongol invaders much like the anti-Qing revolutionaries fighting against the Manchu invaders.

The word Fa refers to the connection between the secret society and the Buddhist monks in the Southern Shaolin Temple. The Hung Fa Wui was open to both Buddhists and non-Buddhists but only had limited access to the Southern Shaolin Temple itself. The Shaolin Temple, being a Zen Buddhist temple, would be inappropriate as the headquarters for a purely political organization. Therefore, the Hung Fa Wui met in a place outside the temple, in a location called the Hung Fa Ting. Sifu Meng traveled to the Southern Shaolin Temple personally and was quite surprised and happy to learn that the only original building left was the Hung Fa Ting.

Within the Hung Fa Ting and Weng Chun Tong, one of the combat systems that were created was referred to as Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. Outside the Hung Fa Ting, it was simply called Wing Chun. The name of the system referred to it’s roots: Hung – symbolizing the secret societies, Fa – symbolizing the Buddhist connection from the Shaolin Temple, and Yi – symbolizing righteous action: developing the self and defending society. The name HFY remained hidden because it was only used within the Secret Societies.

After the destruction of the Southern Shaolin Temple, the secret societies dispersed to areas outside the Temple. Among the survivors of the Wing Chun Tong/Hung Fa Wui, Cheung Ng was one of the only historically verifiable person, founder of the King Fa Wui Gun (aka Hung Fa Wui Gun). After a few generations, Wing Chun took a root in the Opera. One of the groups that was founded out of the King Fa Wui Gun, about 120 years later, was the Hung Syun (Red Boat).

During the Hung Syun era, a leader of the secret societies and a descendant of the HFY Wing Chun was known to have close connections with the Hung Syun, Hung Gun Biu.

In the HFY oral legend, the 4th generation was Hung Gun Biu. He was a high level leader in the secret societies, hence the nickname “Hung Gun” meaning red bandana. According to the HFY lineage, Hung Gun Biu had an influence on Wing Chun’s development within the Hung Syun. AT this time the secret society members continued to refer to themselves as HFYWC while non-secret society members referred to themselves as Hung Syun Wing Chun. Up until the last 50 years or so, much of Wing Chun was not open to the public. The major contributing factor of Wing Chun’s introduction to the public was due to the destruction of the Hung Syun as Rene mentioned. Over the years, many great martial artists have contributed to Wing Chun such as Leung Jan, Chun Wah Shun, Yuen Kay-San, Ip Man, Ng Chun So, and others… Each has developed loyal followers, part of the reason for so many expressions of Wing Chun. Going back to the original question about Wing Chun and fighting, within each of these families either the Grand Master himself or several of his students are great fighters. To use the Ip Man lineage (the largest family) as an example, Bruce Lee and Wong Shun Leung are synonymous with good Wing Chun fighting.

I know several articles are in the works at the VTM, covering Zen and Wing Chun connections as well as HFY symbolism, and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng’s recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple. In addition, there is a trip being planned for the upcoming research trip to China.

As always, previously publised articles are available on the VTM website.

Also on the VTM schedule is a Wing Chun History symposium this year. The goal would be to gather and review the most current information available on Wing Chun history from several angles. There would be no charge for this event and it is open to the public. Details will be forthcoming.

Jeremy R.

Thanks for the info, Rene.

Hey Jeremy,

Happy new year. Hope you all have a healthy, happy, and successful 2003. I think you guys do a great job collecting and writing down the oral stories, and look forward to seeing your completed book when it comes out. Personally, I find it very difficult work–how does one weigh and assess the contrasting stories of people like Gee sifu, Henry Leung, James Lacy, Doo Wai, the Tibetain WCK folks, the Leung Chun folks, etc., nevermind the Yip Man, Sum Nung, Gulao, Cho-ga, Chi Sim, etc. lineages. So, as you know, I’ve been researching the actual history and culture of the time, and while I very much enjoy the rich legends, their symbolism, and allegory, I’ve been trying to see what actually fits.

Contrasting to your group, Andreas Hoffmann, Yip Man, Pao Fa Lien, etc. who refer to Shaolin (northern or southern), Cho & Sum Nung who talk about a blend of Southern Shaolin White Crane and Miu Shun’s system, the Wudang people, and the rest, I’m still conjecturing about WCK evolving aboard the Red Junks, with Weng Chun referring to the boxing of Fujian’s Yongchun county, and Southern Shaolin a cover story used by the Hakka (much as Southern Mantis was). With migration patterns being what they were, and even the Tiandihui itself developing as the result of Tixi et. al’s migration from Fujian, through Guangdong, into Sichuan, and back, there seems lots of material and potential connections to sort through.

As always, though, I believe its better when there’s more than one theory out there, more than one voice. I think respectful disagreement leads everyone towards greater attainment. Just as all theoretically physics folks don’t have the same ideas on black holes, and all historians don’t agree on every nuance of WW2, and every American doesn’t want to drive the exact same car, I think our art is made better by the VTM and by everyone else who looks at the material, finds something they feel is solid, and works it through.

Best of luck with your continued work,

RR

Hi Rene,

Rene Ritchie wrote:

I find it very difficult work–how does one weigh and assess the contrasting stories of people like Gee sifu, Henry Leung, James Lacy, Doo Wai, the Tibetain WCK folks, the Leung Chun folks, etc., nevermind the Yip Man, Sum Nung, Gulao, Cho-ga, Chi Sim, etc. lineages. RR

Particularly when many folks from these many different branches believe – in the absence of evidence – that their legend is factual and everyone else’s is mistaken. Perhaps the place to begin the “research” is throwing out all the legends and looking at what facts we do know. For example, we know that WCK abruptly appeared around 1850 on the Red Boats with Wong Wah Bo, Yik Kam, etc. and quickly moved off the boats. We also know that there is no evidence of WCK being practiced prior to this period. I think the conclusion is obvious. TN

I’ve been trying to see what actually fits. RR

I think this is also a good, independent approach – looking at the “techniques”, choreography, etc. – or as the chinese approach categorizing martial art, how the principles define and determine the nature of a style in two major areas, namely, body use (Ti) and application (Yung). Thus we can look Shaolin and White Crane (two suggested “mother arts”) and see if, in terms of ti and yung, or even superficial appearance, they appear connected to WCK. TN

I think our art is made better by the VTM and by everyone else who looks at the material, finds something they feel is solid, and works it through. RR

IMHO any conclusion is only as good as the “research”, thought, rigor, etc. that goes into it. As such, folks that publish conclusions or fruits of “research” without telling us how they came to those conclusions or what that “research” involved, leave us with nothing of value as we have no means to evaluate for ourselves the correctness of their process or conclusion (so that is really just a form of argument by authority: believe me because I know). And publishing a lineage’s oral legend as “historical fact” – and suggesting it validates the effectiveness of their art – (which btw several lineages do; interesting that folks like Sum didn’t need to go that route – which may tell us something about folks that do), IMHO only leads to skeptical folks seeing it as marketing fluff. TN

Terence

Hang On A Minute!!!

Rene Wrote>

how does one weigh and assess the contrasting stories of people like Gee sifu, Henry Leung, James Lacy, Doo Wai, the Tibetain WCK folks, the Leung Chun folks, etc., nevermind the Yip Man, Sum Nung, Gulao, Cho-ga, “Chi Sim”,etc. lineages.

Contrasting to your group, Andreas Hoffmann

I “thought” that the “VTM” had been researching “Chi Sim Weng Chun” and found it to be the mother of all WCK(the oldest of the old):confused:
Haven’t they been working very closely with Andreas Hoffmann:confused:, from what I’ve read on the VTMs website and Kung Mag:confused:

Terence Wrote>

we know that WCK abruptly appeared around 1850 on the Red Boats with Wong Wah Bo, Yik Kam, etc. and quickly moved off the boats. We also know that there is no evidence of WCK being practiced prior to this period. I think the conclusion is obvious.

Jeremy Wrote>

As always, Rene has done a good job at collecting and presenting a wealth of information on Wing Chun dating from the Red Boat to today. VTM research has focused on what was before red boat. Here’s some of the information I’ve collected over the last year

So, from what I’m reading here :wink: everyone else is doing a great job of researching “Post” Red Boat to present day and the VTM are working heavily on researching “Pre” Red Boat history.

Terence Wrote>

IMHO any conclusion is only as good as the “research”, thought, rigor, etc. that goes into it. As such, folks that publish conclusions or fruits of “research” without telling us how they came to those conclusions or what that “research” involved, leave us with nothing of value as we have no means to evaluate for ourselves the correctness of their process or conclusion (so that is really just a form of argument by authority: believe me because I know).

Jeremy Wrote>

Sifu Meng traveled to the Southern Shaolin Temple personally and was quite surprised and happy to learn that the only original building left was the Hung Fa Ting.

Jeremy Wrote>

I know several articles are in the works at the VTM, covering Zen and Wing Chun connections as well as HFY symbolism, and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng’s recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple. In addition, there is a trip being planned for the upcoming research trip to China.

Terence, this might be something that’s open to people that have never been to China before??, Terence have you been before:confused:

Jeremy Wrote>

Also on the VTM schedule is a Wing Chun History symposium this year. The goal would be to gather and review the most current information available on Wing Chun history from several angles. There would be no charge for this event and it is open to the public. Details will be forthcoming.

“Terence”, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to go see for yourself and get a closer look at what’s being presented:confused:, I’m sure you’re going to be busy?? or make some excuse as to why you can’t go??? or you’re not interested???:wink:

Hopefully, no-one will take offence to this post so it gets erased, I just think I’m raising some valid points;)

Sheldon

I have held off for a long time posting regarding claims made by so many Wing Chun “Historians”.

To be short There is a book Titled " History of Guangdong Martial Arts" ISBN 7-218-00434-2. This was published in China about 20 years ago. It represented 10 years of research by 5 Historians with the help of over 100 others. It was not written to validate any particular family or style or claim. They went all over Guangdong looking for written records. Wing Chun is but a small part of the book yet many interesting things for example. There was no Jee Sim. No record of him existing at all. Many things about others though. Perhaps if one of the “Historians” wanted to act like one then they might read and translate this book and use the records as the basis for true research instead of putting questionable oral myths to paper and calling it history.

Sheldon,

Does taking tourist junks to China make one a “researcher”? Tell me, during all their trips to China, did they once visit their si-gung in HFY? TN

Sheldon writes:

I “thought” that the “VTM” had been researching “Chi Sim Weng Chun” and found it to be the mother of all WCK(the oldest of the old)
Haven’t they been working very closely with Andreas Hoffmann, from what I’ve read on the VTMs website and Kung Mag . SG

You can “believe” (I think that’s the operative word here) whatever you like. My post was about evidencenot oral legend. No one legend, particularly in the face of the many different conflicting legends, is evidence in my book. TN

So, from what I’m reading here everyone else is doing a great job of researching “Post” Red Boat to present day and the VTM are working heavily on researching “Pre” Red Boat history. SG

If they truly are “researching”, they haven’t published what specifically this research entails, how rigorous it was, sources for information, etc. As I said in my post, “research” that doesn’t let us judge for ourselves the correctness of the research procedure and the conclusions drawn therefrom is useless – for anyone can claim anything (and for folks that drop the buzzphrase “scientific method”, you’d think they’d know better). TN

“Terence”, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to go see for yourself and get a closer look at what’s being presented, I’m sure you’re going to be busy?? or make some excuse as to why you can’t go??? or you’re not interested??? Hopefully, no-one will take offence to this post so it gets erased, I just think I’m raising some valid points. SG

I also know of a symposioum on Bigfoot later this year, but don’t plan to attend that. You see, before I spend my time (which is very valuable, and in short supply, to me) on something, I want at least some assurance it won’t be a waste of my time; I’m sure that I’m not alone feeling that way. Perhaps folks that rely on “you need to actually see me/it/whatever to get an idea” might reflect on that. In any event, I’ve read the VTM articles on their “research” and their “conclusions”. And IME if someone has substantive evidence to back up their claims, they’ll produce it. And if the VTM had evidence that “nailed the lid on the coffin” w/r/t their position, they’d have produce it. I don’t need to hear the same things orally that they say in writing to evaluate their claims. TN

Terence

Now, you’ve got me thinking???

Terence Wrote>

You see, before I spend my time (which is very valuable, and in short supply, to me) on something, I want at least some assurance it won’t be a waste of my time;

What do you consider a waste of time:confused:, seeing as this forum is for entertainment purposes, it seems you have plenty of time for entertainment:confused:
You have plenty of time to get on here but no time to go see for yourself:confused:
That’s how “imho” it appears to me;)

Sheldon Wrote>

I’m sure you’re going to be busy?? or make some excuse as to why you can’t go??? or you’re not interested???

Sheldon Wrote>

Hopefully, no-one will take offence to this post so it gets erased, I just think I’m raising some valid points

Sheldon;)

HUH???

Terence Wrote>

Does taking tourist junks to China make one a “researcher”?

Do What!!!

Jeremy Wrote>

and a report wil soon be published on Master Meng’s recent trip to China and the Southern Shaolin Temple.

Jeremy Wrote>

Sifu Meng traveled to the Southern Shaolin Temple personally and was quite surprised and happy to learn that the only original building left was the Hung Fa Ting.

Terence Wrote>

Does taking tourist junks to China make one a “researcher”?

How did you come up with that:confused:, from what Passingthrough wrote, I didn’t find anything about tourist junks:confused:

Sheldon:confused:

Hello…

To Sheldon,
You do bring up some valid points Sheldon, and a great job at doing so! However, I’d like to point out that so do the other posters on this thread - based on what they can identify in what they’ve read. When you read something, you may see something others missed. When they read something, they may read something you have missed! They pointed out parts that they noticed to put in question. But, you also pointed out specifics which address Terence’s and Rene’s points effectively. I thought you did an excellent job without stepping on anyones’ toes!


Terence & Rene,
With all due respect :), your points are clearly valid taken at face value, and your message is not lost on us. Most certainly facts are a neccesity when presenting new information. However, in the medium that the VTM staff is presenting the information - through a worldwide network of magazines and the internet, even with detailed accounts of their research excursions around the world - still what you read fact or fiction, is only an “oral account?” as you coin the term. Read being the operative word. Impossible to present the physical evidence through this manner of communication. The VTM recognize this fact, and have been consistently offerring invitations to the museum to share their findings in person.

Based on what I know from your postings, and my time here on the forum (which I understand is minimal), currently you have not been to the VTM to validate their findings. Are you looking for physical evidence? If so, visiting the VTM or going with them on their trips are only way to validate what the VTM finds or is presenting. However, they can only tell you what they have found so far, and where they are going next. People may call it marketing, but I find it the best and most accessible way to reach the public in a fast and efficient manner. If it is the job of the VTM to share its findings with the public, I’d think it be most appropriate that they pursue the most accessible route possible for the public.

One concrete source of evidence they provided with the public was the discovery of the Hung Fa Ting, recognized by the government of China, and solidifies the ‘oral account’ that the Hung Fa Yi family originated there. What effect does this bring to the other families that have laid claim to originate from the ‘legendary’ Hung Fa Ting? We know Chi Sim exists. We know Hung Fa Yi exists. Hung Fa Ting exists. All before the Hung Syun Era. BUT, of course skepticism is also neccesary when doing research, of any nature. The VTM also recognize this, and expect it. They did mention that future articles (and possibly photos included) will be forthcoming.

Personally, I currently am not part of the research team. I merely assist in the instruction of class at Mengs of AZ. One article I have recently read, found extremely enlightening, and full of information was Sigung Meng and Sisuk Jeremy’s article entitled The Origins and History of Shaolin Weng Chun, which can be found under the articles section on the VTM web site. If you have not come across it yet, hopefully you have some time to read it.

Take care,
-Savi.

Hunt1 - good post.

Sheldon - Stop trolling.

Rene, Oh Please!!!

Rene wrote>

Sheldon - Stop trolling.

So it’s considered Trolling to highlight things that are posted here:confused:,
If you want to call it Trolling then so be it, you are not the “Moderator” here and until I’m advised to do otherwise I will post freely!!!

Sheldon:p

Thank You Savi!!!

Savi wrote>

visiting the VTM or going with them on their trips are only way to validate what the VTM finds or is presenting. However, they can only tell you what they have found so far, and where they are going next.

Why does this make sense to me:confused:, if you find something so unbelievable why waste your time on it:confused:

Sheldon

Terence

I was puzzled by your assertion that the VTM does not inform the public how they conduct research. This link should help you understand the VTM better, and how they conduct their research.

http://home.vtmuseum.org/information/research_approach.php

I hope this helps in your quest.

Thank you,
-Savi.